Ed Boks, LA shelter director, has a new piece in his blog that is a rebuttal to an op-ed piece in the LA Daily News. The link to Susan Taylor's op-ed is:
http://www.dailynews.com/theiropinion/ci_6726449
The link to Ed's rebuttal is
http://laanimalservices.blogspot.com/2007/08/actors-and-others-ignore-obvious.html
I'm not an Ed Boks fan, but Susan Taylor is not any better. Here's a quote from her article that strikes me:
"Aggressive dogs are often put in kennel runs with frightened, docile animals that are attacked if they attempt to eat or get a drink of water.
This happens so frequently that the department's medical expenditures have skyrocketed in recent years from sewing up helpless dogs who've been ripped apart.
Apparently, Boks finds this preferable to euthanizing - and adding to his kill numbers. "
Wow! Read that last line again. She seems to be annoyed that Boks finds providing veterinary care for an injured animal preferrable to euthanizing that animal. She is saying that an animal with a treatable injury incurred at the shelter itself should be euthanized.
What am I missing here?
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Nathan Winograd's book - first thoughts
My copy of Nathan Winograd's book, "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" arrived last Friday and I've been trying to read a little every day. I was going to wait to write something until I had finished the book so I could give a complete review and encourage people to read it, but forget that. GO GET THE BOOK NOW AND START READING!
This is a revolutionary book. I've alternated between rage and tears over it. Let me give you a small taste of the book and why it's so important that we all read it.
In June at the DC City council hearing on DC's proposed animal control ordinance, a group of bird enthusiasts (I can't remember the group's name) argued against the ordinance's inclusion of a TNR requirement for feral cats. They claimed that feral cats decimate song birds and wild migratory bird populations. This took me by surprise, and in the back of my mind since that hearing I've wondered about how to respond to this argument. Here's a taste of what Nathan says on the topic:
The final argument that the HSUS has made to oppose TNR is that cats are not "native" and are killing native birds and other species. Others have joined this chorus...
In a joing campain called "Cats Indoors" established by the American Humane Association, the American Bird Conservancy and the HSUS, the organizations claimed that "scientists estimate that cats kill hundreds of millions of birds each year and three times as many small mammals." The coalition's resulting Cats Indoors campaign would later go on to say that
"scientifc studies actually show that each year, cats kill hundreds of millions of migratory songbirds. In 1990, researchers estimated that "outdoor" house cats and feral cats are responsible for killing nearly 78 million small mammals and birds annually in the United Kingdom. University of Wisconsin ornithologist, Dr. Stanley Temple estimates that 20-150 million songbirds are killed each year by rural cats in Wisconsin alone."
Both of these claims fly in the face of evidence, and neither of the studies cited stands up to scrutiny. In the British study, a bird advocate asked a small number of people living with cats who allowed the cats outside to record any birds and small mammals their cats brought home. The researcher then took that number, multiplied it by how many cats he guessed lived in England, and came up with the astonishing number of seventy-eight million. The methodology, to put it mildly, is unscientific; the "study" is nothing more than an oversimplified formula of multiplying a guessed number of cats in England by how many birds a small number of cats brought home. Since the world is not that simple, statistical models are not created by merely multiplying two numbers. The study's formulation is, in the words of one reviewer, "irresponsible and reflects a feeble understanding of basic science."
Science, by contrast, asks qualitative questions: How did the birds die? Did the cats kill them? Were they road kill or fledglings who would have died anyway? Was there any indication of disease in the prey? Was the catch freshly killed or were the birds dead for days? All of these answers could have been found with very little effort, but the author ignored them. More importantly, the study also ignored the fact that several hundred birds in the village where the study was conducted must die each year to maintain a stable population and that the village's bird density was nine times higher than the rest of Britain! These latter facts lead to Jeff Elliott's inescapbale conclusion after he analyzed the study:
"Taken togehter, these elements suggest another interpretation: cats are simply weeding out birds from an overcrowded population. Nor are they apparently catching healthy birds at their peak of winged life; wintertime is most stressful on birds that are old or sick, and fledglings tumbling down from nests could account for the high count in early summer. And with only 130 dead sparrows recorded...the cats kill - or find - less than half the numbers that must be annually culled to sustain their population."
- end of quote from the book
Now if I ever have to respond to the "song bird" argument, I know exactly how.
This is an incredible book and a must read for everyone! The book is available through Barnes and Noble, and you can find more information at www.nathanwinograd.com. I'll try to write more when I finish.
This is a revolutionary book. I've alternated between rage and tears over it. Let me give you a small taste of the book and why it's so important that we all read it.
In June at the DC City council hearing on DC's proposed animal control ordinance, a group of bird enthusiasts (I can't remember the group's name) argued against the ordinance's inclusion of a TNR requirement for feral cats. They claimed that feral cats decimate song birds and wild migratory bird populations. This took me by surprise, and in the back of my mind since that hearing I've wondered about how to respond to this argument. Here's a taste of what Nathan says on the topic:
The final argument that the HSUS has made to oppose TNR is that cats are not "native" and are killing native birds and other species. Others have joined this chorus...
In a joing campain called "Cats Indoors" established by the American Humane Association, the American Bird Conservancy and the HSUS, the organizations claimed that "scientists estimate that cats kill hundreds of millions of birds each year and three times as many small mammals." The coalition's resulting Cats Indoors campaign would later go on to say that
"scientifc studies actually show that each year, cats kill hundreds of millions of migratory songbirds. In 1990, researchers estimated that "outdoor" house cats and feral cats are responsible for killing nearly 78 million small mammals and birds annually in the United Kingdom. University of Wisconsin ornithologist, Dr. Stanley Temple estimates that 20-150 million songbirds are killed each year by rural cats in Wisconsin alone."
Both of these claims fly in the face of evidence, and neither of the studies cited stands up to scrutiny. In the British study, a bird advocate asked a small number of people living with cats who allowed the cats outside to record any birds and small mammals their cats brought home. The researcher then took that number, multiplied it by how many cats he guessed lived in England, and came up with the astonishing number of seventy-eight million. The methodology, to put it mildly, is unscientific; the "study" is nothing more than an oversimplified formula of multiplying a guessed number of cats in England by how many birds a small number of cats brought home. Since the world is not that simple, statistical models are not created by merely multiplying two numbers. The study's formulation is, in the words of one reviewer, "irresponsible and reflects a feeble understanding of basic science."
Science, by contrast, asks qualitative questions: How did the birds die? Did the cats kill them? Were they road kill or fledglings who would have died anyway? Was there any indication of disease in the prey? Was the catch freshly killed or were the birds dead for days? All of these answers could have been found with very little effort, but the author ignored them. More importantly, the study also ignored the fact that several hundred birds in the village where the study was conducted must die each year to maintain a stable population and that the village's bird density was nine times higher than the rest of Britain! These latter facts lead to Jeff Elliott's inescapbale conclusion after he analyzed the study:
"Taken togehter, these elements suggest another interpretation: cats are simply weeding out birds from an overcrowded population. Nor are they apparently catching healthy birds at their peak of winged life; wintertime is most stressful on birds that are old or sick, and fledglings tumbling down from nests could account for the high count in early summer. And with only 130 dead sparrows recorded...the cats kill - or find - less than half the numbers that must be annually culled to sustain their population."
- end of quote from the book
Now if I ever have to respond to the "song bird" argument, I know exactly how.
This is an incredible book and a must read for everyone! The book is available through Barnes and Noble, and you can find more information at www.nathanwinograd.com. I'll try to write more when I finish.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
There are definately better ways!
Michael Fitzgerald does a moderately okay job on recordnet.com pointing out the pitfalls in a cat licensing law proposed in Stockton CA in a post entitled "Cat tags: noble cause, many flaws". Cat licensing is, to put it mildly IMO, stupid. Compliance is dismal and it accomplishes nothing. But Michael ends his article with:
"Despite all the holes one can punch in the proposed law, its proponents deserve credit for declaring a halt to the unchallenged extermination of thousands of animals. On that part, I'm with them. You should be, too.
If I could suggest a better way, I would. Can you?
Contact columnist Michael Fitzgerald at (209) 546-8270 or michaelf@recordnet.com. "
Oh yeah, I can suggest some better ways! Let's start with determining the source of the animals in Stockton's shelters, then implementing policies directed at those specific sources. If the main source is strays or ferals, TNR and support for spay/neuter to low income homes. Low income families who can no longer afford to keep their pets will either set them free (strays) or surrender them to the shelters. They ain't never gonna buy no license! Whatever the source is, it must be known first and then an appropriate policy applied or nothing will work.
What's the danger in trying cat licensing? Simple - it lulls people into a false sense that they are trying something, and that's worse than trying nothing. Other methods that could work won't be tried. Enacting an unenforceable law that will have almost no compliance is not a good idea at all! We don't need more laws, especially laws that won't work. We need solutions.
So let's all let Michael know there are better ways than a law no one will obey.
"Despite all the holes one can punch in the proposed law, its proponents deserve credit for declaring a halt to the unchallenged extermination of thousands of animals. On that part, I'm with them. You should be, too.
If I could suggest a better way, I would. Can you?
Contact columnist Michael Fitzgerald at (209) 546-8270 or michaelf@recordnet.com. "
Oh yeah, I can suggest some better ways! Let's start with determining the source of the animals in Stockton's shelters, then implementing policies directed at those specific sources. If the main source is strays or ferals, TNR and support for spay/neuter to low income homes. Low income families who can no longer afford to keep their pets will either set them free (strays) or surrender them to the shelters. They ain't never gonna buy no license! Whatever the source is, it must be known first and then an appropriate policy applied or nothing will work.
What's the danger in trying cat licensing? Simple - it lulls people into a false sense that they are trying something, and that's worse than trying nothing. Other methods that could work won't be tried. Enacting an unenforceable law that will have almost no compliance is not a good idea at all! We don't need more laws, especially laws that won't work. We need solutions.
So let's all let Michael know there are better ways than a law no one will obey.
"Financial Woes Add Up to Pet Surrenders"
An article on the postcrecent.com website (from Appleton, Wisconsin) entitled "Financial Woes Add Up to Pet Surrenders" says what cat breeders have been saying all along - low income families just cannot afford veterinary care for their pets.
The article describes the increase in shelter turn-ins for July 2007 vs. July 2006:
"Monthly pet surrenders rose 31 percent in July compared to the same month last year — from 172 in July 2006 to 226 last month — the association reported Friday."
"Shelter admission reports show dogs and cats entering the shelter last month totaled 504, up 86 animals, or 21 percent, compared to July 2006.
All of that year-to-year increase was attributable to a 34 percent increase in cat and kitten admissions, which rose from 278 in July 2006 to 373 last month, a difference of 95 animals."
The shelter officials say these increases are from a surge in surrenders. When people are broke or destitute, they surrender their pets. The shelter in the article takes surrenders without a fee, otherwise these animals would become strays. This begs the question - how many of the strays we see in shelter intakes all over the country are from people too poor to care for their animal who can't pay a fee at a shelter that will not take a surrender without a fee? If someone cannot afford a pet, they will find someplace to dump the poor animal. Fee or no fee at a shelter, the animal will arrive there eventually.
This is a sad situation. When a family has to chose between food for themselves or keeping the family pet, it's heart breaking. But if this is the source for shelter intakes, what good will mandatory laws and fees do?
The article describes the increase in shelter turn-ins for July 2007 vs. July 2006:
"Monthly pet surrenders rose 31 percent in July compared to the same month last year — from 172 in July 2006 to 226 last month — the association reported Friday."
"Shelter admission reports show dogs and cats entering the shelter last month totaled 504, up 86 animals, or 21 percent, compared to July 2006.
All of that year-to-year increase was attributable to a 34 percent increase in cat and kitten admissions, which rose from 278 in July 2006 to 373 last month, a difference of 95 animals."
The shelter officials say these increases are from a surge in surrenders. When people are broke or destitute, they surrender their pets. The shelter in the article takes surrenders without a fee, otherwise these animals would become strays. This begs the question - how many of the strays we see in shelter intakes all over the country are from people too poor to care for their animal who can't pay a fee at a shelter that will not take a surrender without a fee? If someone cannot afford a pet, they will find someplace to dump the poor animal. Fee or no fee at a shelter, the animal will arrive there eventually.
This is a sad situation. When a family has to chose between food for themselves or keeping the family pet, it's heart breaking. But if this is the source for shelter intakes, what good will mandatory laws and fees do?
Monday, August 20, 2007
The No Kill Guy
Nathan Winograd, the guy behind the No Kill Advocacy Center, has started a new blog. His first post is about the reasons why organizations like HSUS and PETA portray the goal of shelters becoming no kill so negatively - self-preservation. It's a good post, I can't do it justice in a summary. I'm looking forward to Nathan's new book and his upcoming book tour. I'll report on the book as soon as I get it and read it.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Why the Numbers Matter
Thanks to 'Sheila and Her Cats' for directing me to a great article in the Wall Street Journal, "Trying to Herd a Cat Stat" by Carl Bialik, The Numbers Guy. Sheila posted a comment to my "Leaving Well Enough Alone" entry from August 7th. In that blog post, I wrote about a North Carolina article that quoted SpayUSA's statistic that one unspayed female and her offspring can lead to 11,606,077 kittens. My response - Right! Then why aren't we walking on a blanket of kittens covering the earth? There should be trillions of them. The article that Sheila pointed me to finds a similar statistic to be just not believable.
Carl Bialik starts his article with a question: "Can a single female cat and her offspring really produce 420,000 cats over just seven years?" He then goes on to say that even though the stat appears regularly in articles anytime an animal advocacy group wants to promote more aggressive spaying and neutering, no group seems to want to take ownership of the stat to back it up. He quotes John New, a professor of veterinary medicine at Univ. Tennessee who says "What that number does not take into account is that there are deaths -- kitten mortality, in particular. Common sense would tell you, if [the stat] were true, we'd be up to our ears in cats." Bialik goes on to say that if the stat were true, we'd have 50 trillion cats and the US would produce more pounds of kittens than coal. If the 420,000 stat is so outrageously off, then so is the 11,606,077 stat of Spay USA's!
The best part of the article is where Bialik debunks the 420,000 as just mathematically incorrect when mortality is considered. Jerry Folland is a mathematician consulted for the article, and he calculated the number to be more like 100. But Jerry assumed one year and six kittens with only a quarter of the kittens surviving to adulthood. Even with a more generous estimation of two litters of six per year, the number rises to 5000 - a "far cry" from 420,000 and a very far cry from the millions projected by Spay USA.
I went to the Spay USA website, and indeed they make the claim that one unspayed female and her offspring could lead to 11,606,077 cats in just nine years! The dog number is worse - 67,000 in six years. Spay USA has cats at 66,088 in six years. Right now, we humans should not be able to move for all the dogs and cats that should be covering the earth.
Professor New, the vet med guy from UT, disagreed with the number but not the use of the number. In the Bialik article, he stated "If you can convince someone to spay one more cat, more power to them." When asked "even if the number is wrong?" his response was "Well, I think it's exaggerated, and that never happens in marketing."
Now we're to the point that I really want to discuss - the use of exponentially inflated statistics to support the AR-ist point of view. The problem, Professor New, is that this isn't marketing. We're not selling candy bars here! We're discussing the life, death, and health of our pets. I believe we should be accurate. And more importantly, these misleading numbers are being used not to get people to voluntarily alter their pets but rather to pass restrictive legislation mandating that everyone spay and neuter their cats and dogs.
Wikipedia gives what I think is an excellent description of "propaganda":
Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'Propaganda Fide', literally “propagating the faith”] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.
The statistics quoted by Spay USA are only a statistical possibility, are not likely and are in fact false since we are not swimming in kittens and puppies. Spay USA does not include the fact that unregulated cat populations have a high mortality rate for kittens as well as adults. A population of cats will be a size that can survive on the available food supply while avoiding predators. In reality, a cat population cannot grow unchecked. And surely Spay USA's statistic is not referring to an unspayed kitten kept as a pet indoors, because the home would soon be stuffed with kittens. The owner would soon do something before reaching several hundred kittens. While the statistics are a factual possibility, they are unrealistic. They are only part of the picture. The selective use of these stats is a "loaded message" clearly meant to "produce an emotional rather than rational response." Propaganda at it's finest!
Nobody wants cats and dogs to die in shelters. Everyone that cares about animals wants to decrease shelter numbers. The difference between myself and some of the radical MSN (mandatory spay/neuter) advocates is that I believe we should address the true source of animals in shelters with methods that will work - voluntary spay/neuter with affordable or free programs targetted to low income pet owners, education, TNR (Trap, Neuter, Return), and proven methods from the No Kill Advocacy Center. The people who quote selective and unrealistic numbers want to use "Nanny laws" that just will not work. We do not need MSN to decrease shelter numbers. Joe Pet Owner who has an unspayed cat does not need to be scared into spaying her with propaganda or forced with a "nanny law", he needs to see the positives of doing so and he needs to find affordable and convenient veterinary services. The danger with propaganda is that those among us lacking in common sense who would believe such exaggerated statistics sometimes pass ineffective laws based on those exaggerated statistics. These laws can, in fact, increase shelter numbers by causing people to relinquish their pets when they cannot afford to alter them.
So Professor New, you might think those exaggerated numbers can convince someone to spay or neuter one more cat and thus the use is justified. In reality, the propaganda leads to laws that cause shelter data to rise while methods that could work are ignored. Your propaganda does more harm than good.
Accuracy with the information matters. Propaganda is never really a good thing.
Carl Bialik starts his article with a question: "Can a single female cat and her offspring really produce 420,000 cats over just seven years?" He then goes on to say that even though the stat appears regularly in articles anytime an animal advocacy group wants to promote more aggressive spaying and neutering, no group seems to want to take ownership of the stat to back it up. He quotes John New, a professor of veterinary medicine at Univ. Tennessee who says "What that number does not take into account is that there are deaths -- kitten mortality, in particular. Common sense would tell you, if [the stat] were true, we'd be up to our ears in cats." Bialik goes on to say that if the stat were true, we'd have 50 trillion cats and the US would produce more pounds of kittens than coal. If the 420,000 stat is so outrageously off, then so is the 11,606,077 stat of Spay USA's!
The best part of the article is where Bialik debunks the 420,000 as just mathematically incorrect when mortality is considered. Jerry Folland is a mathematician consulted for the article, and he calculated the number to be more like 100. But Jerry assumed one year and six kittens with only a quarter of the kittens surviving to adulthood. Even with a more generous estimation of two litters of six per year, the number rises to 5000 - a "far cry" from 420,000 and a very far cry from the millions projected by Spay USA.
I went to the Spay USA website, and indeed they make the claim that one unspayed female and her offspring could lead to 11,606,077 cats in just nine years! The dog number is worse - 67,000 in six years. Spay USA has cats at 66,088 in six years. Right now, we humans should not be able to move for all the dogs and cats that should be covering the earth.
Professor New, the vet med guy from UT, disagreed with the number but not the use of the number. In the Bialik article, he stated "If you can convince someone to spay one more cat, more power to them." When asked "even if the number is wrong?" his response was "Well, I think it's exaggerated, and that never happens in marketing."
Now we're to the point that I really want to discuss - the use of exponentially inflated statistics to support the AR-ist point of view. The problem, Professor New, is that this isn't marketing. We're not selling candy bars here! We're discussing the life, death, and health of our pets. I believe we should be accurate. And more importantly, these misleading numbers are being used not to get people to voluntarily alter their pets but rather to pass restrictive legislation mandating that everyone spay and neuter their cats and dogs.
Wikipedia gives what I think is an excellent description of "propaganda":
Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'Propaganda Fide', literally “propagating the faith”] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.
The statistics quoted by Spay USA are only a statistical possibility, are not likely and are in fact false since we are not swimming in kittens and puppies. Spay USA does not include the fact that unregulated cat populations have a high mortality rate for kittens as well as adults. A population of cats will be a size that can survive on the available food supply while avoiding predators. In reality, a cat population cannot grow unchecked. And surely Spay USA's statistic is not referring to an unspayed kitten kept as a pet indoors, because the home would soon be stuffed with kittens. The owner would soon do something before reaching several hundred kittens. While the statistics are a factual possibility, they are unrealistic. They are only part of the picture. The selective use of these stats is a "loaded message" clearly meant to "produce an emotional rather than rational response." Propaganda at it's finest!
Nobody wants cats and dogs to die in shelters. Everyone that cares about animals wants to decrease shelter numbers. The difference between myself and some of the radical MSN (mandatory spay/neuter) advocates is that I believe we should address the true source of animals in shelters with methods that will work - voluntary spay/neuter with affordable or free programs targetted to low income pet owners, education, TNR (Trap, Neuter, Return), and proven methods from the No Kill Advocacy Center. The people who quote selective and unrealistic numbers want to use "Nanny laws" that just will not work. We do not need MSN to decrease shelter numbers. Joe Pet Owner who has an unspayed cat does not need to be scared into spaying her with propaganda or forced with a "nanny law", he needs to see the positives of doing so and he needs to find affordable and convenient veterinary services. The danger with propaganda is that those among us lacking in common sense who would believe such exaggerated statistics sometimes pass ineffective laws based on those exaggerated statistics. These laws can, in fact, increase shelter numbers by causing people to relinquish their pets when they cannot afford to alter them.
So Professor New, you might think those exaggerated numbers can convince someone to spay or neuter one more cat and thus the use is justified. In reality, the propaganda leads to laws that cause shelter data to rise while methods that could work are ignored. Your propaganda does more harm than good.
Accuracy with the information matters. Propaganda is never really a good thing.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Leaving Well Enough Alone.
North Carolina just passed a bill establishing two methods of funding spay/neuter. Melissa Wheeler wrote about the bill in The Times News on August 5th. The article explains that the two methods are a 2o cent increase on the rabies tag and a special license plate for the state. And Wheeler makes a very good point:
"In my personal opinion, pet overpopulation is not just an animal lover’s issue. It’s a social and health issue that affects all the citizens of our state. The tax cost of housing, feeding and eventually euthanizing and disposing of hundreds of thousands of unwanted shelter animals is not small. By spaying and neutering cats and dogs, the tax savings could potentially be enormous."
Animal shelters are necessary in every community or county, and funding them is everyone's problem. Reducing the number of animals that go through animal shelters is not only a morally worthy goal, but an economically worthy goal as well. Some areas have realized that every dollar spent funding spay/neuter programs saves more dollars in animal control costs.
But Wheeler just couldn't let the story end there. She tries to make a point for emphasis about the good that spay/neuter can do but ends up using highly inflammatory and false statistics:
"According to Spay USA, a single unspayed cat can produce through her and her offspring 11,606,077 kittens. An unspayed dog, somewhat less prodigious, can produce through her and her offspring 67,000 puppies in six years. "
A single unspayed cat can lead to 11,606,077 kittens - this is one of the most ridiculous statistics I've ever heard, and it is propaganda, plain and simple. How do I know the statistic is false? Because an unaltered feral colony can have a hundred unspayed females yet somehow not increase to 100,000,000 cats in the colony! While cats can be prolific producers in the wild, they just are not. In a perfect predator and disease free environment with unlimited food supply and premium veterinary care, sure a group of cats could grow quite large if unchecked. But we know that in the wild, groups of cats don't grow to the hundreds of millions because we'd be tripping over them just to cross the street.
And why use this piece of propaganda? It's enough that an unspayed cat can have just one litter of homeless kittens that could get turned in to a shelter, why throw in the sensational scare tactic? Wheeler should have just left well enough alone and stayed away from the unsubstantiated claim of Spay USA.
"In my personal opinion, pet overpopulation is not just an animal lover’s issue. It’s a social and health issue that affects all the citizens of our state. The tax cost of housing, feeding and eventually euthanizing and disposing of hundreds of thousands of unwanted shelter animals is not small. By spaying and neutering cats and dogs, the tax savings could potentially be enormous."
Animal shelters are necessary in every community or county, and funding them is everyone's problem. Reducing the number of animals that go through animal shelters is not only a morally worthy goal, but an economically worthy goal as well. Some areas have realized that every dollar spent funding spay/neuter programs saves more dollars in animal control costs.
But Wheeler just couldn't let the story end there. She tries to make a point for emphasis about the good that spay/neuter can do but ends up using highly inflammatory and false statistics:
"According to Spay USA, a single unspayed cat can produce through her and her offspring 11,606,077 kittens. An unspayed dog, somewhat less prodigious, can produce through her and her offspring 67,000 puppies in six years. "
A single unspayed cat can lead to 11,606,077 kittens - this is one of the most ridiculous statistics I've ever heard, and it is propaganda, plain and simple. How do I know the statistic is false? Because an unaltered feral colony can have a hundred unspayed females yet somehow not increase to 100,000,000 cats in the colony! While cats can be prolific producers in the wild, they just are not. In a perfect predator and disease free environment with unlimited food supply and premium veterinary care, sure a group of cats could grow quite large if unchecked. But we know that in the wild, groups of cats don't grow to the hundreds of millions because we'd be tripping over them just to cross the street.
And why use this piece of propaganda? It's enough that an unspayed cat can have just one litter of homeless kittens that could get turned in to a shelter, why throw in the sensational scare tactic? Wheeler should have just left well enough alone and stayed away from the unsubstantiated claim of Spay USA.
Monday, August 6, 2007
More from PETA
PETA believes there is no such thing as a "responsible breeder." We've known this of course for some time now, but just in case you ever had any doubt about how PETA really feels about breeders, read their anti-breeder manifesto.
"All breeders fuel the companion animal overpopulation crisis, and every time someone purchases a puppy or a kitten instead of adopting from an animal shelter, homeless animals lose their chance of finding a home—and will be euthanized."
"There is no excuse for breeding or for supporting breeders."
Of course there is an excuse for breeding! Our breeds are not the same as random-bred shelter animals. When someone wants a Siamese with it's loud voice and dog-like affectionate demeaner, that person will not be satisfied with a random-bred cat. Our breeds are not fungible - you cannot just replace a purebred with another cat.
The biggest part of the PETA lie is that cats from breeders make up less than 3% (and by some estimates less than 1%) of the cats in shelters. If all hobby-oriented cat breeding (meaning those who breed and register their cats with an association like CFA) stopped today, it would have no affect on those shelter numbers. None, zip, nada.
"All breeders fuel the companion animal overpopulation crisis, and every time someone purchases a puppy or a kitten instead of adopting from an animal shelter, homeless animals lose their chance of finding a home—and will be euthanized."
"There is no excuse for breeding or for supporting breeders."
Of course there is an excuse for breeding! Our breeds are not the same as random-bred shelter animals. When someone wants a Siamese with it's loud voice and dog-like affectionate demeaner, that person will not be satisfied with a random-bred cat. Our breeds are not fungible - you cannot just replace a purebred with another cat.
The biggest part of the PETA lie is that cats from breeders make up less than 3% (and by some estimates less than 1%) of the cats in shelters. If all hobby-oriented cat breeding (meaning those who breed and register their cats with an association like CFA) stopped today, it would have no affect on those shelter numbers. None, zip, nada.
The NY Times publishes PETA
My letter to the editor to the NY Times for the Klinkenborg editorial went unpublished, but not PETA's which was published on August 4th.
"We’ve been educating, helping and begging people to spay and neuter their animals for years, but three million to four million cats and dogs still die in shelters every year because of simple math: too many animals, not enough worthy adoptive homes.
"We’ve been educating, helping and begging people to spay and neuter their animals for years, but three million to four million cats and dogs still die in shelters every year because of simple math: too many animals, not enough worthy adoptive homes.
This crisis calls for mandatory spay and neuter legislation. Given the current dire shortage of homes, no breeding is responsible. Every time someone buys a puppy or kitten from a breeder, a shelter animal loses its chance at a home and pays with its life.
Breeders kill shelter animals’ chances to find good homes. It is time to practice your A B C’s (Animal Birth Control)! Animals aren’t possessions to use, abuse and throw away when we tire of them.
If people won’t be responsible for their animals on their own, it’s time to make carelessness criminal.
Daphna Nachminovitch
Norfolk, Va., July 31, 2007
The writer is the director of Domestic Animals and Wildlife Rescue & Information for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals."
PETA has no desire to limit breeding, they want to eliminate it. They don't want to consider alternatives to mandatory legislation, alternatives that could work, because that would mean people would still breed some animals. No, they want all breeding stopped. At least now we have their point of view in print.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
The West Virgina Public Affairs Reporter has an article in their June 2007 journal entitled Animal Welfare and Control Issues in West Virginia and the United States: Old Problems with New Answers, by Susan Hunter. The article begins with a survey of Animal Control and Animal Welfare laws in West Virginia compared to other states and covers a broad range of animal law related issues. Then the article goes into issues specific to West Virginia.
In a section titled "Overpopulation and Feral Cats", the author states what seem like mixed pieces of information conflating feral cats and cat overpopulation. Clearly, feral cat colonies are a significant problem. But the potential solutions that Hunter describes include policies and legislation that can only be directed at owners of cats.
Spay/Neuter legislation that establishes low cost options and mandates that animals released from shelters and rescues be altered has worked in other states, as Hunter says. But then she makes this statement without substantiation: "Both spay/neuter low cost clinics and mandatory spay/neuter have an impact, although it appears that mandatory spay/neuter may be more effective." This is in a section where the only mandatory spay/neuter laws discussed are those concerning animals released from shelters. I would like to see Hunter explain why she believes mandatory spay/neuter of animals released from shelters is more effective at reducing shelter intakes than low cost clinics.
The next solution discussed is licensing, specifically differential licensing for altered vs. unaltered cats and dogs. Hunter admited earlier that a major problem with licensing is compliance. But then she states "Licensing by itself, does not address the feral cat problem, even if owners license their feline companions (Kalet, 2000). The serious problem in most communities is overpopulation by cats that have no identified owner. Differential licensing of altered and unaltered cats, however, might reduce the number of abandoned cats who become feral or produce feral kittens." I am at a loss here. How can licensing, which has a very poor compliance rate, help with cat overpopulation (which Hunter does not prove exists in West Virginia) or with feral cats? Someone who would abandon a whole cat that eventually produces generations of feral cats will not stop to get a license first. This solution is a big stretch.
The only worthwhile solution offered is state support for TNR, which Hunter mistakenly terms as Trap Neuter Release. Effective TNR is Trap Neuter Return, where the colony is monitored. "Release" implies no further human intervention with the colony. As Hunter says, veterinarians have some concerns over Trap Neuter Release, as do I. Before advocating a TNR policy, Hunter should describe the policy in a little more detail.
Puppymills are listed as a Consumer Protection Problem. Hunter states that a puppymills are "large commercial enterprises in which dogs are bred to produce puppies to sell to research labs, pet stores or individual buyers" and notes that West Virginia is not known for puppymills since there is only one USDA licensed breeder in the state. It seems getting a USDA license makes the breeder a puppymill. Hunter further states that "Puppymills are so well-known for abusive, unsanitary, and inhumane conditions, that Governor Rendell in Pennsylvania recently fired his entire Dog Advisory Board for failing to improve conditions in the state’s mills and Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania introduced legislation in Congress to force more oversight of puppymills." Apparently to Hunter, being a commercial enterprise makes a breeder a puppymill, and puppymills are abusive, unsanitary, and inhumane. Her solution? Differential licensing. "Differential licensing reduces puppymill profits. The higher the difference between fees for unaltered animals vs. spayed or neutered animals, the more likely commercial breeders would be to move to another state." This flies in the face of all reason and logic! Hunter's solution to the puppymill problem is to move them to another state. I am at a loss for words.
In the final section on recommendations, Hunter suggests something that I am appalled would even be considered. She suggests that "One effective tool for reducing pet overpopulation is differential licensing, which establishes one license fee or tax for spayed or neutered animals and a much higher tax or license fee for unaltered animals." Again, Hunter acknowledges that compliance is a problem. Her solution?
"1. Dogs and cats are required to be vaccinated for rabies. If veterinarians were given the authority to issue cat and dog licenses, and did so at the time of vaccinations, a differential fee could be collected as easily as a set fee, and owners would be encouraged to spay/neuter their pets. Compliance would increase as well. This adds work for veterinary clinics so they must be able to collect an additional processing fee.
2. Fines for noncompliance should be significant and minimum fines could be established to ensure that they are applied. If animal control officers received the revenue from these fines, they would have an incentive to check animals for proof of registration."
Turning veterinarians into an arm of animal control will mean people will be less likely to take their pets to the vet. This idea is obscene! Significant fines and giving animal control officers the revenue from those fines will mean more people will just forfeit their pet rather than pay up. Shelter numbers will increase! Again, this idea is just obscene!
And since many cats in shelters are not returned to their owners because the owner cannot be determined, Hunter's solution is "To improve the identification of owned cats, a cat registration program would be invaluable. Several states have voluntary programs in which cat owners can register their cats and receive licenses to identify them. A mandatory system would include cats in the definition of personal property and tax them at the same level as dogs. Again, giving veterinary clinics the authority to collect these taxes would increase compliance." Again, I am at a loss for words.
Hunter's final conclusion regarding funding and enforcement is "Funding is always an important concern in any policy area. Because current taxes and fines are very low, a significant increase in the dog tax, extension of the tax to include cats, a significant increase in kennel license fees, and a high minimum fine for noncompliance on all current animal control and welfare laws would provide an increase in revenues. To provide an incentive to animal control officers to enforce the laws, these increased fines and funds must go to animal control efforts in each county."
I fear for the pets in West Virginia if Hunter's policy recommendations ever become law.
In a section titled "Overpopulation and Feral Cats", the author states what seem like mixed pieces of information conflating feral cats and cat overpopulation. Clearly, feral cat colonies are a significant problem. But the potential solutions that Hunter describes include policies and legislation that can only be directed at owners of cats.
Spay/Neuter legislation that establishes low cost options and mandates that animals released from shelters and rescues be altered has worked in other states, as Hunter says. But then she makes this statement without substantiation: "Both spay/neuter low cost clinics and mandatory spay/neuter have an impact, although it appears that mandatory spay/neuter may be more effective." This is in a section where the only mandatory spay/neuter laws discussed are those concerning animals released from shelters. I would like to see Hunter explain why she believes mandatory spay/neuter of animals released from shelters is more effective at reducing shelter intakes than low cost clinics.
The next solution discussed is licensing, specifically differential licensing for altered vs. unaltered cats and dogs. Hunter admited earlier that a major problem with licensing is compliance. But then she states "Licensing by itself, does not address the feral cat problem, even if owners license their feline companions (Kalet, 2000). The serious problem in most communities is overpopulation by cats that have no identified owner. Differential licensing of altered and unaltered cats, however, might reduce the number of abandoned cats who become feral or produce feral kittens." I am at a loss here. How can licensing, which has a very poor compliance rate, help with cat overpopulation (which Hunter does not prove exists in West Virginia) or with feral cats? Someone who would abandon a whole cat that eventually produces generations of feral cats will not stop to get a license first. This solution is a big stretch.
The only worthwhile solution offered is state support for TNR, which Hunter mistakenly terms as Trap Neuter Release. Effective TNR is Trap Neuter Return, where the colony is monitored. "Release" implies no further human intervention with the colony. As Hunter says, veterinarians have some concerns over Trap Neuter Release, as do I. Before advocating a TNR policy, Hunter should describe the policy in a little more detail.
Puppymills are listed as a Consumer Protection Problem. Hunter states that a puppymills are "large commercial enterprises in which dogs are bred to produce puppies to sell to research labs, pet stores or individual buyers" and notes that West Virginia is not known for puppymills since there is only one USDA licensed breeder in the state. It seems getting a USDA license makes the breeder a puppymill. Hunter further states that "Puppymills are so well-known for abusive, unsanitary, and inhumane conditions, that Governor Rendell in Pennsylvania recently fired his entire Dog Advisory Board for failing to improve conditions in the state’s mills and Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania introduced legislation in Congress to force more oversight of puppymills." Apparently to Hunter, being a commercial enterprise makes a breeder a puppymill, and puppymills are abusive, unsanitary, and inhumane. Her solution? Differential licensing. "Differential licensing reduces puppymill profits. The higher the difference between fees for unaltered animals vs. spayed or neutered animals, the more likely commercial breeders would be to move to another state." This flies in the face of all reason and logic! Hunter's solution to the puppymill problem is to move them to another state. I am at a loss for words.
In the final section on recommendations, Hunter suggests something that I am appalled would even be considered. She suggests that "One effective tool for reducing pet overpopulation is differential licensing, which establishes one license fee or tax for spayed or neutered animals and a much higher tax or license fee for unaltered animals." Again, Hunter acknowledges that compliance is a problem. Her solution?
"1. Dogs and cats are required to be vaccinated for rabies. If veterinarians were given the authority to issue cat and dog licenses, and did so at the time of vaccinations, a differential fee could be collected as easily as a set fee, and owners would be encouraged to spay/neuter their pets. Compliance would increase as well. This adds work for veterinary clinics so they must be able to collect an additional processing fee.
2. Fines for noncompliance should be significant and minimum fines could be established to ensure that they are applied. If animal control officers received the revenue from these fines, they would have an incentive to check animals for proof of registration."
Turning veterinarians into an arm of animal control will mean people will be less likely to take their pets to the vet. This idea is obscene! Significant fines and giving animal control officers the revenue from those fines will mean more people will just forfeit their pet rather than pay up. Shelter numbers will increase! Again, this idea is just obscene!
And since many cats in shelters are not returned to their owners because the owner cannot be determined, Hunter's solution is "To improve the identification of owned cats, a cat registration program would be invaluable. Several states have voluntary programs in which cat owners can register their cats and receive licenses to identify them. A mandatory system would include cats in the definition of personal property and tax them at the same level as dogs. Again, giving veterinary clinics the authority to collect these taxes would increase compliance." Again, I am at a loss for words.
Hunter's final conclusion regarding funding and enforcement is "Funding is always an important concern in any policy area. Because current taxes and fines are very low, a significant increase in the dog tax, extension of the tax to include cats, a significant increase in kennel license fees, and a high minimum fine for noncompliance on all current animal control and welfare laws would provide an increase in revenues. To provide an incentive to animal control officers to enforce the laws, these increased fines and funds must go to animal control efforts in each county."
I fear for the pets in West Virginia if Hunter's policy recommendations ever become law.
Here's my response to an editorial in the NY Times from July 30, 2007:
Mr. Klinkenborg is very mistaken in his editorial of July 30, Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals? He ends the essay with:
"Americans are consumers of pets just as we are consumers of everything else. We expect gratification without responsibility. We see only the easy pleasure, not the work. The rate at which dogs are purchased and euthanized in this country is not a sign of our affection for them. It’s a sign of our indifference."
This is not true. Many studies have shown that most pet owners are responsible. Somewhere between 85% to 95% of cat owners alter their cats. Around 75% of dog owners alter their dogs. These numbers do not show a society that expects "gratification without responsibility" from their pets! All of those "please spay and neuter your pets" license plates, Bob Barker's signature phrase urging us to spay and neuter our pets - these things have been working! Shelter numbers have been decreasing exactly because Americans are becoming more and more responsible about the reproduction of our pets.
Mr. Klinkenborg also says "There may be better ways than a statewide law to reduce the number of unwanted pets. But the opponents of mandatory neutering make it sound as though the problem can be solved mainly by teaching owners to spay or neuter their pets voluntarily." This is also untrue. The opponents of the California bill AB 1634 did not make it sound as though education was the better way. Since so many pets are already altered, it is imperative to direct any policy goals towards the ones that are not already altered. For cats, the largest group of unaltered animals is the feral and free-roaming cats who do not have owners. No mandatory state law will address that group of cats. The solution is for localilties with feral colonies to implement methods to address those colonies specifically, such as TNR (Trap, Neuter,Return). The next group of unaltered cats belong to low income families who cannot afford the vet bills. Voluntary low cost or free spay/neuter programs must be directed at the source of the unaltered pets. Many areas around the country have found that programs targetted to low income areas have achieved great success in decreasing shelter intakes in those areas. Education alone is not enough, and that has never been the position of the opposition. Opponents to AB 1634 recommend programs directed at the source of shelter intakes.
Let's say for the sake of argument that Mr. Klinkenborg is correct and that Americans are just a bunch of irresponsible pet owners who expect other people to take care of their problems. Well then, what good will a mandatory spay/neuter law do? We irresponsible American pet owners will just disobey it. Does Mr. Klinkenborg really think that if AB 1634 became law, irresponsible pet owners would be breaking down the doors of every vet in California to get their animals altered? I doubt it very much. And if the law were enforced, what would the irresponsible American do? He would surrender the pet rather than pay the fine! This is what happened in Santa Cruz when that county adopted a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. When enforced, people surrendered their pets and shelter intakes went up drastically as a result.
But fortunately for our pets, Mr. Klinkenborg is incorrect. The vast majority of America's pet owners are responsible. We do not need a mandatory nanny law to tell us how to treat our pets. What we need are real solutions targetted at the biggest sources of shelter intakes, and those are feral cat colonies and low income pet owners who can barely afford to feed their families let alone alter the family pet.
Mr. Klinkenborg is very mistaken in his editorial of July 30, Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals? He ends the essay with:
"Americans are consumers of pets just as we are consumers of everything else. We expect gratification without responsibility. We see only the easy pleasure, not the work. The rate at which dogs are purchased and euthanized in this country is not a sign of our affection for them. It’s a sign of our indifference."
This is not true. Many studies have shown that most pet owners are responsible. Somewhere between 85% to 95% of cat owners alter their cats. Around 75% of dog owners alter their dogs. These numbers do not show a society that expects "gratification without responsibility" from their pets! All of those "please spay and neuter your pets" license plates, Bob Barker's signature phrase urging us to spay and neuter our pets - these things have been working! Shelter numbers have been decreasing exactly because Americans are becoming more and more responsible about the reproduction of our pets.
Mr. Klinkenborg also says "There may be better ways than a statewide law to reduce the number of unwanted pets. But the opponents of mandatory neutering make it sound as though the problem can be solved mainly by teaching owners to spay or neuter their pets voluntarily." This is also untrue. The opponents of the California bill AB 1634 did not make it sound as though education was the better way. Since so many pets are already altered, it is imperative to direct any policy goals towards the ones that are not already altered. For cats, the largest group of unaltered animals is the feral and free-roaming cats who do not have owners. No mandatory state law will address that group of cats. The solution is for localilties with feral colonies to implement methods to address those colonies specifically, such as TNR (Trap, Neuter,Return). The next group of unaltered cats belong to low income families who cannot afford the vet bills. Voluntary low cost or free spay/neuter programs must be directed at the source of the unaltered pets. Many areas around the country have found that programs targetted to low income areas have achieved great success in decreasing shelter intakes in those areas. Education alone is not enough, and that has never been the position of the opposition. Opponents to AB 1634 recommend programs directed at the source of shelter intakes.
Let's say for the sake of argument that Mr. Klinkenborg is correct and that Americans are just a bunch of irresponsible pet owners who expect other people to take care of their problems. Well then, what good will a mandatory spay/neuter law do? We irresponsible American pet owners will just disobey it. Does Mr. Klinkenborg really think that if AB 1634 became law, irresponsible pet owners would be breaking down the doors of every vet in California to get their animals altered? I doubt it very much. And if the law were enforced, what would the irresponsible American do? He would surrender the pet rather than pay the fine! This is what happened in Santa Cruz when that county adopted a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. When enforced, people surrendered their pets and shelter intakes went up drastically as a result.
But fortunately for our pets, Mr. Klinkenborg is incorrect. The vast majority of America's pet owners are responsible. We do not need a mandatory nanny law to tell us how to treat our pets. What we need are real solutions targetted at the biggest sources of shelter intakes, and those are feral cat colonies and low income pet owners who can barely afford to feed their families let alone alter the family pet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)